Agenda item

Members were invited to ratify the written response to the Welsh Government consultation on the proposed new section of the M4 motorway and consider what further comment, if any, members may wish to provide to Welsh Government.

During discussion the following points were noted:

One Member raised the following concerns, and comments to be added to the response:

·         Such an important matter had not been debated fully at Council, and the response did not reflect work done within the County.  The M4 relief is Monmouthshire’s version of Spaghetti Junction.

·         There was disregard of the Development Plan for Rogiet and Undy

·         There was disregard of the areas of historical importance, Llanvihangel and Rogiet.  No mention of listed buildings

·         Using up prime farmland in the area, affecting people’s livelihoods in Llanvihangel.  No regard to agricultural loss and flooding of farmland.

·         Concern surrounding noise and poor air quality

·         There may be no fatalities, but accidents are frequent at Llanvihangel.

·         No mention of the traffic through Rogiet.

·         How would traffic from the west side of Rogiet get to Severn Tunnel Junction?  No viable route. No comment on the excess expense this route would take.

·         In view of sustainable transport, the car parking access at Severn Tunnel Junction should be addressed.  Station Road could not take any more traffic.

A Member, agreeing with the comments made, added:

·         The B4245 becoming a trunk road would be dangerous.  P

·         Plans for a footpath between Rogiet and Undy would now not be appropriate.

·         The report should be stronger to reflect the concerns of Members.

·         A stronger argument should be made to remove traffic from the M48 on the Caldicot to Rogiet link.

·         A footpath costing £300,000 would come out of sustainable transport money.  It was argued that this should come out of the money for the development.

·         There should be more thought and action from developers.

A Member commented that the plans were not clear, and impacts could not be fully anticipated.  The response should ensure clearer details from Welsh Government.

A member added that there were wider questions about the way the proposals would detract from other infrastructure projects for the rest of Wales.  She agreed with previous comments that the Council should be clearer and stronger in their response.  In addition the following points were highlighted, to be added to the response to Welsh Government:

·         Progress on public transport, such as Metro, should be outstripping the progress on the M4.  If we had better integrated public transport it would potentially negate the need for this particular solution.

·         In terms of integrated public transport, it should be noted that the transport grant had been cut by 40%.

·         It should be added that there is a debate within the Council to whether the Magor and Undy by-pass is the best solution.

·         The proposed junction east of Undy is over-engineered and not located appropriately should we want to progress our proposals around Severn Tunnel Junction.  It would not assist with removing some of the traffic from the B4245, but simply move traffic into Rogiet.

·         The current mitigation is entirely insufficient, and had been agreed by Welsh Government’s noise expert, Peter Ireland, at consultations.

·         The footpath from Rushwall to Barecroft Common does not meet Active Travel requirements.

·         The footway potentially becoming a trunk road, meaning it is more dangerous to walk or cycle along.  Previous requests to Welsh Government to reconsider this had simply resulted in the responsibility being referred back to Monmouthshire County Council.

·         It was requested that further liaison with Welsh Government be undertaken.

A Member added that he felt strongly that the relief road was outdated and would simply move queues from one place to another.  The Metro and other transport options should be the priority. Comparing the proposals to options in other European cities shows the project to be hopeless.  Therefore he was unable to support the letter under discussion.

A Member urged that there be representation from this Council at Welsh Government, to be paid for by Welsh Government for engagement in the scheme.

In terms of the Metro, a Member added that rather than focusing on one scheme or the other, we should be concentrating on both, as much of the traffic comes from England, particularly with the likely increase of traffic with the reduction of the bridge tolls.  The Metro would not take the pressure of the traffic from England.

The Cabinet Member for Community Development agreed with the comments raised and noted that the entire budget should not be focused on one project, particularly when we are being told there is no money to address problems within Monmouthshire in need of attention.  There was some surprise that the letter had stated that the proposal fitted into the Integrated Transport Plan, and in fact the letter did not address work already agreed upon.  It had been agreed for the M48 junction between Rogiet and Caldicot, with a direct link into Severn Tunnel Junction, with plans being drawn up and submitted to Welsh Government, yet this was absent from the letter.  It was suggested that this be added to the new response.

The Cabinet Member for County Operations accepted the comments and noted the difficulty in timescales for submitting the original letter.  The number of different views were noted but it was agreed there was a common thread that the scheme was outdated. 

Upon being put to the vote we resolved to agree with the recommendation in the report.  It was agreed that the letter should reflect that a number of Members had refused to ratify the letter.

The Chief Executive suggested that the final letter expresses the strong views within the Council. It should reference that there was a split view, but on balance, Members support the letter.